get_archived_campaign

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and the modifier 'archived standard campaign' clarifies the object's state. It does not disclose error handling, but for a simple retrieval tool, the core behavioral trait (non-mutating read) is sufficiently conveyed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and scope without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter read operation, the description is largely complete. It specifies the object type ('standard' vs. VAST) and archived status. It does not describe the return structure, but the absence of an output schema makes this less critical. Minor gap: it doesn't state what 'details' includes or how errors are returned.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% coverage with the description 'Archived campaign ID' for the only parameter. The tool description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Get details') and the resource ('a specific archived standard campaign'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_archived_campaigns (enumerating) and vast_get_archived_campaign (VAST-specific). This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for retrieving one archived standard campaign, and the word 'specific' indicates it is for a single entity. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over get_campaign (active) or list_archived_campaigns (listing), nor does it name alternatives. Clear context but no explicit exclusion or comparison.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.